FED UP WITH NUDE CLUB TEASE, CITY SUES

Chula Vista files suit, says Eyecandy violates city codes

CHULA VISTA 
The city of Chula Vista has filed a lawsuit against Eyecandy Showgirls, a fully nude strip club, that says the business has violated fire, sign, building and zoning codes.

City Council members authorized litigation during a closed session June 11, and a complaint was filed in San Diego Superior Court on June 26 against Bay & E Inc. The suit seeks abatement of a public nuisance and injunctive relief.

“We’ve tried to get voluntary compliance from Eyecandy and now we’ll try to get it through the courts,” said Deborah Fox, a Los Angeles attorney retained by the city. “The complaint relates to their failure to locate in an area that meets the city’s buffering requirements for the location for an adult cabaret.”

In May, the city gave Eyecandy one month to shut down, relocate or begin operating solely as nonadult use.

The ultimatum followed updates to the city’s ordinance regulating sexually oriented businesses just weeks after Eyecandy opened, placing technical and physical restrictions that limited hours of operation, prohibited direct touching between patrons and performers and implemented a 6-foot separation rule, among other things.

Eyecandy continues to advertise itself as the only strip club in San Diego County that offers fully nude lap dances.

The city later claimed that Eyecandy is in violation of its zoning code, which requires that adult businesses be located at least 500 feet from any existing residential zone, park, religious institution, school or playground.

The complaint states Eyecandy is less than 500 feet from a residentially zoned property and park or playground.

Eyecandy Attorney Roger Diamond maintains his client is not in violation of the city’s zoning code.

“My client was operating as the adult business as far as we can tell before the city put in these restrictions,” he said.

Diamond previously said his client is willing to move if provided with alternative locations.

A preliminary review by the city’s Development Services Department identified nearly 200 potential locations where the strip club could legally operate within the city.

However Diamond says those locations won’t work.

“Those properties are not all zoned commercial thoroughfare, and the few that are, are disqualified by churches,” he said. “We want the city to guarantee that if my client goes to that location, that they can stay there, but the city won’t do that. I’ve been through this before. I will not have a client move, unless we get assurances from the city that it’s OK.”

City staff says that while the locations are not recommendations, they are legally zoned for that type of business.

“I would hope that they would immediately comply with the city’s operating standards and stop offering fully nude lap dances,” Fox said.

With regard to other violations, Diamond said his client was working with city officials to correct them but was trapped by more rules.

“We were asked to submit modified plans to make corrections, but the city would not take the plans,” Diamond said. “They said we would need code enforcement approval. They’re just horsing us around.”

The city also claims the strip club exposes the city to potential secondary effects, including increased crime, prostitution, blight and also threatens the health, safety and welfare of the residents, among other things.

Diamond says the lawsuit has no merit and is a waste of taxpayer money.

“We were willing to sit down with the city … and they did not take advantage of it,” he said.

When it submitted its business license for operation as a cabaret theater, which allows for adult live entertainment, in early October last year, Eyecandy replaced the Anthony’s Fish Grotto restaurant.

The city claims Eyecandy falsely misrepresented itself when it filed an application for a business license, including materials to operate a comedy club, restaurant serving light meals and full service bar under Amber Hand Entertainment.

Diamond says information pertaining to the comedy club and other information cited in the complaint is irrelevant to the suit.

The operator was given 30 days to file a written response to the complaint.